If everything is standardized regarding racquets, then we would loss a number if racquet companies (and therefore jobs) in the process.

Offering variety adds to the marketplace.

Click to expand...

Is there any need for so many racket companies? A pro shop owner told me recently that he would be happy if Prince did not succeed after its bankruptcy filing, as its models were just more burden on him and there was nothing too special about them.

Is there any need for so many racket companies? A pro shop owner told me recently that he would be happy if Prince did not succeed after its bankruptcy filing, as its models were just more burden on him and there was nothing too special about them.

Click to expand...

Well, it's good for the economy...more companies mean more jobs. And Prince is an American company.

I'm surprised that that pro shop owner felt that way. Prince is one of the few companies that has tech that is actually visible. I've been using Prince my entire tennis career, and I have really enjoyed playing with a number of Prince frames (Rebels, SP Tour, O3 Tour Mid).

If everything is standardized regarding racquets, then we would loss a number if racquet companies (and therefore jobs) in the process.

Offering variety adds to the marketplace.

Click to expand...

Not true. There were more racquet companies back during the days of wood racquets than there are today even though most wood racquets were essentially the same, i.e., much less differences between them than there are today with racquets. They pretty much were all the same size, weight, string pattern, etc. In fact, most of the companies that made wood racquets are no longer around today or are no longer making tennis racquets, e.g., Snauwaert, Davis, Spalding, Bancroft, Rossignol, Garcia, Slazenger, Le Coq Sportif, Fila, Donnay (the original company), etc. And making wood racquets was more labor intensive so they provided even more jobs than making graphite racquets today.

Hey Breakpoint, in your avatar you have a picture of a guy who is using a more powerful/tech assisted frame from what he used for 20+ years. Just thought you should know.

Ps, he's using a Luxilon hybrid now.

Click to expand...

So? What is his opponent using? If his opponent was using a wood racquet, I'm sure Sampras would have no problem using one also. In fact, Sampras did use an old Donnay wood racquet to play an exhibition match against Lendl (who was using graphite) like a year ago. Sampras still won.

And did you see that Champions Tour match in which Todd Martin took out an old wood racquet and proceeded to spank his opponent with it? He was hitting winners all over the place with that wood racquet as if he never switched. He might have played even better.

Not true. There were more racquet companies back during the days of wood racquets than there are today even though most wood racquets were essentially the same, i.e., much less differences between them than there are today with racquets. They pretty much were all the same size, weight, string pattern, etc. In fact, most of the companies that made wood racquets are no longer around today or are no longer making tennis racquets, e.g., Snauwaert, Davis, Spalding, Bancroft, Rossignol, Garcia, Slazenger, Le Coq Sportif, Fila, Donnay (the original company), etc. And making wood racquets was more labor intensive so they provided even more jobs than making graphite racquets today.

Click to expand...

However, distribution is completely different these days. If we were to switch at this point, I'm certain we would lose some companies.

The big boom happened not because of technology bit because of the personalities ....Mcenroe , Connors , Borg.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Tennis has been gaining in popularity again in recent years. In fact, there was a Wall Street Journal article that stated this fact...it was written this summer (sorry, I don't know the specific date).

Well, it's good for the economy...more companies mean more jobs. And Prince is an American company.

I'm surprised that that pro shop owner felt that way. Prince is one of the few companies that has tech that is actually visible. I've been using Prince my entire tennis career, and I have really enjoyed playing with a number of Prince frames (Rebels, SP Tour, O3 Tour Mid).

Click to expand...

More companies does not always mean more jobs in the long term. For example, Wilson could sell more rackets to replace Prince rackets. And a company which is employing people but losing money is simply making owners and shareholders poorer and taking out loans it may not pay back. Prince filed for bankruptcy. In such cases, entities like creditors and vendors typically get a fraction of what they are owed, which is not good for the workers in those companies.

The pro shop owner speaks from experience because in his shop, Prince does not sell much. He also used to stock Volkl, but got away from it. Wilson, Bab, Dunlop and Head are what he focuses on.

It obviously does work or else Wilson wouldn't be coming out with these racquets. But it shouldn't be allowed to work because players shouldn't be allowed to use it. If players want to generate more spin, they should go work on their technique, not just buy a new racquet.

Click to expand...

Aha so some players can get more spin with these new racquets and some like yourself, can get more spin with more closed pattern strings like the 18x20 you mentioned.
Am I missing something or are you just blatantly self serving and self interested?

Aha so some players can get more spin with these new racquets and some like yourself, can get more spin with more closed pattern strings like the 18x20 you mentioned.
Am I missing something or are you just blatantly self serving and self interested?

Click to expand...

I don't know if it's more spin or what but I really love an open string pattern.

I guess my racquet progression went from the Kblade 18x20 and just going more and more open and loving it more and more.

I switched over to the Donnay pro one 16x19 and LOVED it. It was basically the same racquet as the Kblade just a more open string pattern.

Then the Vortex Tour 100 came out with a 14x15 pattern and I went nuts. It's basically the same stick as the Kblade and the Pro one but an even more open string pattern .

Now Wilson has really come out with something so intriguing.....less crosses than Mains ? WOW!!!!

Luckily I know the weight balance and size stick I love the most....but the more open a string pattern the better I seem to play.

I'm wondering if anyone knows the specs of the Wilson 99s? I saw the rumored specs and it seemed a bit on the light side . Will it be the same specs as the regular 99 steam just with a more open string pattern? Is there anyway to get the stick before January?

Also I've seen people talk about prince having a stick with a really open pattern....which stick is it?

I have never been so anxious to buy a stick.....this is more exciting than the IPhone 5 ...lol.

Aha so some players can get more spin with these new racquets and some like yourself, can get more spin with more closed pattern strings like the 18x20 you mentioned.
Am I missing something or are you just blatantly self serving and self interested?

Click to expand...

All players should have to generate their own spin using a 65 sq. in. racquet with an 18x20 pattern because that was the standard for over 100 years. Bjorn Borg could do it. If you can't do it then your technique is the problem.

All players should have to generate their own spin using a 65 sq. in. racquet with an 18x20 pattern because that was the standard for over 100 years. Bjorn Borg could do it. If you can't do it then your technique is the problem.

Woodforde used a 15 gauge polyester....the Vortex which is modeled after the woodforde racquet recommends a similar 15 gauge polyester or a multifilament 15 gauge which is more old school than woodfordes poly .

All players should have to generate their own spin using a 65 sq. in. racquet with an 18x20 pattern because that was the standard for over 100 years. Bjorn Borg could do it. If you can't do it then your technique is the problem.

In an article entitled the 'inch that changed tennis' it was shown rather satisfactorily that the modern topspin game requires a racquet far wider than the traditional wood one.

Beyond that it is a question of technique, although string pattern will change launch angle and strings will change slipperiness.

Click to expand...

Great article if its the one in thinking of . Polyester strings by the way have been around since at least the 70's . I think Polystar was the first and before that they simply refered to it as Nylon....pretty much the same thing.

But the inch that changed tennis happened in the 70's .....it was inch added to the tennis racquet and it states that its not the equipment that has changed but the players. Their techniqie amd physique. Here ya go:

Tennis: String Theory

Professional tennis players call it "the Luxilon shot," and, apparently, you can hear it coming. The ball crosses the net hissing and spitting like some enraged tropical insect. Its most lethal element is its topspin, which can dip the ball crosscourt in short angles so extreme that "the game has gone from linear to parabolic," as ex-pro turned coach Scott McCain recently put it. "It's like ping-pong out there."

The Luxilon shot can be traced back to 1997, when Gustavo Kuerten, a gangly, low-ranked Brazilian player, decided to string his racket with a co-polymer monofilament designed by Luxilon Industries, a small Belgian company specializing in medical sutures and bra straps (it still makes both). Kuerten confounded opponents with his aggressive, dipping shots, winning three French Open Championships and reaching number one. He credited Luxilon for a crucial role in his unlikely ascent. (See pictures of Wimbledon.)

Today, natural gut strings — the strands of sterilized cow entrails once used by most professionals — have all but disappeared from pro tennis. At this year's French Open beginning May 24, 65% of men and 45% of women will use a Luxilon string, and almost all those who don't will use an imitation. This despite the fact that the family-owned company based in Antwerp refuses to pay top players to use its products and requires most to buy the string — almost unheard of in the freebie-filled world of professional tennis.

But is the "Luxilon shot" all down to Luxilon string? In a 2006 article titled "The Inch that Changed Tennis Forever," Rod Cross, a physics professor at the University of Sydney, argued that the innovation in equipment that transformed topspin from a looping, defensive shot into a dive-bombing, offensive play actually happened in the late 1970s, when equipment makers widened the heads of professional rackets from nine inches to 10 (they also dropped wood for metal and eventually graphite). The extra inch allowed players to tilt the racket forward and swing from low to high without worrying about clipping the edge of the frame when brushing up on the ball.

According to Cross, nothing much has changed since that innovation; it's only in the last 10 years that players have developed the physique and technique to take advantage of the extra width by whipping the racket up in a motion that generates about five times more spin than the ground strokes players were hitting in the 1970s. "Players were given an inch in the 1970s and they took a mile," he says.

Pinpointing the role equipment has played in tennis's evolution can be tricky, however. Conventional wisdom once held that more powerful racket frames led to the hard-serving power game of the late '90s. But a 1997 test by Tennis Magazine found that 6 ft. 5 in. (1.96 m) Australian Mark Philippoussis served at an average speed of 124 m.p.h. (200 km/h) with his own graphite racket, and an only slightly slower 122 m.p.h. (196 km/h) with a classic wooden racket.

Polyester monofilament strings do generate "slightly more" spin than older generation strings, according to the International Tennis Federation (ITF), which started testing the playing characteristics of strings three years ago, but ITF head of science Stuart Miller says he's not sure why. One theory is that far from "biting" the ball, as many players describe it, the strings are "slippery" — when the ball pulls the strings out of their gridded alignment, they snap back quickly, propelling the ball's rotation. (See pictures of Pete Sampras.)

Yet even as strings offer greater potential for spin, players need technique to fulfill that potential. As Miller says, "the most important factor in the generation of spin is racket speed." Research by Cross at the University of Sydney has shown that pro tennis players have much less feel for strings than they think, and tend to overestimate their importance. A study published last year found that 90% of professionals could not feel a 6 lb. (2.7 kg) difference in the tension of strings in two different frames — even though most professionals insist on exacting string specifications for their matches.

Players who use Luxilon string say it feels "stiff" and "dead" on impact. But Luxilon general manager Nico van Malderen says that internal testing has shown the string is actually more powerful than the average. So it's possible that players developed aggressive topspin strokes with Luxilon because they felt they needed to swing harder to generate the same pace. As former world No. 1 Jim Courier says, "Technology has been the catalyst, but my guess is that if you forced all players to go back to technology from 1950 they would play much more aggressively than previous generations. The new style is working for them." Whatever the exact interplay of man and equipment may be, it has allowed fans to witness a thrilling revolution.

You're right. Fewer crosses is nothing new. They had them back in the 1970's and it was called "spaghetti strings". They were quickly and promptly banned by the ITF for producing too much spin. So I don't see why they shouldn't ban this new racquet from Wilson. Oh, and they should ban ALL poly strings while they're at it for producing too much spin, which is the same reason they banned spaghetti strings 35 years ago.

And, no, my post was not tongue-in-cheek but quite serious.

Click to expand...

Are you really that stupid? "spaghetti strings" are completely different from just fewer crosses.

If that's true, then yes, it should be banned. But the thing is, I get just as much spin, sometimes even more spin, with 18x20 racquets as I do with 16x19 racquets. Why? Because I generate spin with my technique and not with my racquet or strings. I generate just as much spin with multis as I do with poly strings, which is why I don't use poly. I don't choose racquets because of string pattern because I can hit with as much spin with any pattern.

All players should have to generate their own spin using a 65 sq. in. racquet with an 18x20 pattern because that was the standard for over 100 years. Bjorn Borg could do it. If you can't do it then your technique is the problem.

Click to expand...

Why don't you just permanently blind fold yourself so you don't have to see the world progresses?

All players should have to generate their own spin using a 65 sq. in. racquet with an 18x20 pattern because that was the standard for over 100 years. Bjorn Borg could do it. If you can't do it then your technique is the problem.

Click to expand...

Completely avoids the question and tries to question my form instead. Wow.
You never directly answered so I'll take that as a "yes, the main reason I want to ban any tech is so I would have the advantage over everybody else. I'm most important."

If that's true, then yes, it should be banned. But the thing is, I get just as much spin, sometimes even more spin, with 18x20 racquets as I do with 16x19 racquets. Why? Because I generate spin with my technique and not with my racquet or strings. I generate just as much spin with multis as I do with poly strings, which is why I don't use poly. I don't choose racquets because of string pattern because I can hit with as much spin with any pattern.

Completely avoids the question and tries to question my form instead. Wow.
You never directly answered so I'll take that as a "yes, the main reason I want to ban any tech is so I would have the advantage over everybody else. I'm most important."

Click to expand...

I don't think he's saying that, exactly. I think it has more to do with the idea of using a racquet as a shortcut to improvement. As a coach, I understand and agree with that. Technique is vital to becoming better.

However, I think the game is a lot more fun with current technologies.

I would hope that is tongue-in-cheek. There is nothing new about fewer crosses allowing the mains to move more freely (at the expense of some control, typically). I can imagine the only R&D Wilson spent on this was down the coffee shop thinking up the next gimmick.

Click to expand...

Haha, so true. Of course they recommend using their string to maximize the benefits. lol

Haha, so true. This should be their most interesting gimmick in some time though.

Click to expand...

I dont get why people are saying this. Unless the article that was written on Tennis.com does not have actual science behind it I dont understand why people keep calling it a marketing scheme. Have you read the article?

I dont get why people are saying this. Unless the article that was written on Tennis.com does not have actual science behind it I dont understand why people keep calling it a marketing scheme. Have you read the article?

Why don't you just permanently blind fold yourself so you don't have to see the world progresses?

Click to expand...

How is today's modern baseline bashing game "progress"?

If that's "progress", we should all go back to living in caves.

All the creativity, variety, touch, strategy, intelligence, etc. have been eliminated from the sport. That is NOT 'progress". That is regression. The game is worse now than it was before. Watching baseline bashing is mind numbing. People should get paid for sitting through an entire WTA match.

Completely avoids the question and tries to question my form instead. Wow.
You never directly answered so I'll take that as a "yes, the main reason I want to ban any tech is so I would have the advantage over everybody else. I'm most important."

Click to expand...

Um....how do I gain any "advantage"? I'll be using the same exact non-spin enhancing equipment as my opponent. If I can generate more spin, then I have the better technique because there was no help at all from the equipment. If my opponent can generate more spin, then he has the better technique. It's crystal clear who the better player is since it's not muddled by differences in equipment.

All the creativity, variety, touch, strategy, intelligence, etc. have been eliminated from the sport. That is NOT 'progress". That is regression. The game is worse now than it was before. Watching baseline bashing is mind numbing. People should get paid for sitting through an entire WTA match.

Click to expand...

No, they are BETTER, because they can WIN. Your argument is all TALK, ATP tour is about who can WIN.